Judicial Term Limits Amendment [Failed]

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Nay

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You should notice that I've not said why I'm voting against the amendment. That will become clear soon enough and it, probably, isn't for the same reason as some other nay votes.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You should notice that I've not said why I'm voting against the amendment. That will become clear soon enough and it, probably, isn't for the same reason as some other nay votes.

There are two reasons for my vote:

1. I don't see the point in making an unreasonable and dangerous constitutional change more likely to get through the Senate and more likely to be approved by the public.

2. It's clearly unfair that newer Justices should have to face this sort of thing while older ones don't.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

nay

[Filuwaúrdjan]

2/3rds does seem like a reasonable safeguard.

Aye

I'll quite likely still vote against the bill though.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Aye

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I should note that an abstention is the same as an Aye vote. Mainly because of a very silly court ruling made by a court full of people who really should have known better than to intervene in the internal business of the Senate.

Anyway, I've yet to decide how to vote. My problem is this; while I think that the court needs its wings clipped (not so much a comment on the current court, as on past (and perhaps future?) ones. You know, the ones full of far-right hacks who abused their positions rather more than was entirely decent...), I worry about further politicising what is already a highly politicised institution.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Not convinced that a centrist hack is any good either.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I should note that an abstention is the same as an Aye vote.

Really?  They've been counted as Nays even since that silly court battle

Typo

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Out of all the people here, I suspect Al and I disagree on the nature of judges more than anyone else.

Interesting.

(should note that I don't think that my rushed statement above is a very good summary of my views on the subject... but then we've both been here for a while...)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Reading (and a lot of it over a fairly long period of time). A few other things as well o/c.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Judicial temperament? Yes, of course. More or less anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would actually have preferred it if this, erm, "other action", had been attempted first. Though I suspect that I'm just about the only person here who thinks that.